Re: [RDA-L] 264 dates

[James Weinheimer]

On 19/06/2013 01:45, Robert Maxwell wrote:

> Mac, you have brought this issue up often enough, but what do you do about 
> other parts of the record that are geared toward a particular language 
> community? Notes in 5XX fields are going to be in English in English-language 
> records, for example, and for good reason. We use English terms in the extent 
> element. There are lots of places in the record where we use the language of 
> the cataloging agency. I don't see how this differs from using English terms 
> in a publication statement (specifically the date of publication element). I 
> also note that this is not new to RDA. AACR2 also used English-language 
> phrases like "not after Aug. 21, 1492" or "between 1711 and 1719" (21.16G).
>
> And yes, the fact that we record a lot of information within the record in 
> the language of the cataloging agency does imply that a cataloging agency 
> that uses a different language would need to create its own record in its own 
> language, i.e., duplicate records. I don't see any way around that. At least 
> most of our users in Utah wouldn't be happy with records for Chinese 
> resources created by Chinese agencies (the Universal Bibliographic Control 
> ideal) in which the notes, the publication statement, the extent, etc., were 
> all in Chinese.


With the power of modern systems, it is important to realize that "text"
today is not like "text" on a piece of paper. Everybody keeps talking
about metadata and linked data, but those are not the only tools and
there are other developments that are just as important (I think even
more important) and could be incredibly useful. Here is an example of
what can be done today, using a tool that is "free", i.e. from Google
(and we should all now be getting a better awareness of what "free"
means, although in this case, I think it really is free).

I wish I could make a live demonstration of this but I cannot seem to
find a permanent link into the Russian National Library catalog
http://www.nlr.ru/eng/opac/#1, so this is the best I can do at the
moment. Here is a record (in Russian characters) for a book by Mikhail
Gorbachev as cataloged there, and I have chosen their ISBD format:
(after Mark's tests, I think the Russian characters will come out OK)
, ?? ? (1931-).
   ? ? XX  : ??? / ?? , ??? ? ;
[???. ?. ?]. - ?. : Blue apple, 2000. - 175 ?., [8 ?. ??.
??., ??. ?.] ; 22 .
   5000 ???. - ISBN 5-8415-0004-? (? ???.).
   ??? 94(47+57)(093.3)
   ??? 63.3(2)6+?3(0)6,02+?3(2)74,02
   03.19
   I. ? ???. - 1.  ???, 20 ?. 2. ???
?-? ?  - 

When I run this through Google Translate, I get:
Gorbachev, Mikhail Gorbachev (1931 -).
Moral lessons of XX century: Dialogues / Mikhail Gorbachev, Daisaku
Ikeda, [Afterword. Gorbachev]. - M.: Blue apple, 2000. - 175. [8 liters.
col. ill., col. Portree.] 22.
5000 copies. - ISBN 5-8415-0004-X (In per.).
UDC 94 (47 +57) (093.3)
BBK 63.3 (2) 6 + T3 (0) + T3 6.02 (2) 74.02
03.19
I. Daisaku Ikeda. - 1. Recent history, at 20. 2. The restructuring
of social and economic life of the community - the Soviet Union

It doesn't understand some of the Russian bibliographic abbreviations
and ignores them mostly e.g. where it changed " ???, 20 ?."
(Recent history--20th century) to "Recent history, at 20." It did figure
out "col. ill." but considered the "8 ?." (leaves) as "8 liters", which
is pretty funny! It also didn't pick up  "?." as "portrait". Far
from perfect, but not all that bad. The final product is very readily
comprehensible to a person. The biggest error however, is with
Gorbachev's name, which for some reason goes from ", ??
? (1931-)." (Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeevich (1931-)" to
"Gorbachev, Mikhail Gorbachev (1931 -)." ignoring his patronimic! I have
no idea how or why that happened.

This could also be done with another format that the Russian library
provides, which they call "full" but is actually a simplified XML-type
of delimited information, which I won't append here (and unfortunately,
I cannot link to it).

Google Translate can be made to work as a "mashup" which could work in
conjunction with catalogs. It's easy to implement and I have it working
on my blog, e.g. for my blog in Greek
http://translate.google.com/translate?client=tmpg&hl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.jweinheimer.net%2F&langpair=en|el.
I am sure the translation is far from perfect, but someone may be able
to get some kind of an idea of what is there, otherwise it is totally
gone to them. It's helped me with languages I don't understand.

All of this can--and will--be improved vastly and libraries could make
versions for their own purposes (adding authorized forms or URIs?, or
maybe making special translations for specific fields such as the 300
field). Libraries could perhaps be lucky enough to work with Google and
supplement what 

Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

[Bernadette Mary O'Reilly]

We would probably use '[2012?]' as the conjectural publication date for
example 1.  Our rule is to use the best evidence readily available,
which is often but not invariably the copyright.  I've checked Amazon in
similar cases and have always found that their date, which presumably
reflects availability to the public, corresponds to the printing date
rather than the copyright date.  But having checked Amazon I would add a
500 note, 'Publication date from bookseller's website', so I would not
really be using either copyright or printing date as the basis for the
conjecture.

 

We record all supplied dates as conjectural unless they come from the
publisher's website or the ISBN agency or something equally
authoritative.

 

We always record the copyright date if found on the resource.

 

For example 2, like most others we would give the date or conjectural
date of paperback issue if making a separate record for the paperback
but would often just add the paperback ISBN to the hardback record and
record the paperback date only as a holdings note.

 

Best wishes,

Bernadette

*** 
Bernadette O'Reilly 
Catalogue Support Librarian 

01865 2-77134 

Bodleian Libraries, 
Osney One Building
Osney Mead
Oxford OX2 0EW.

*** 

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: 18 June 2013 21:00
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

 

For Example 1 I would supply 2013 as the publication date. Books are
always printed before they are published. Presumably these were printed
and delivered to the publisher in late 2012. Then they were "published",
i.e., issued to the public. That could easily have happened the
following year. To me the copyright date is evidence here of the
publisher's intention.

 

For Example 2, assuming I am creating a separate record for the
paperback, I would supply 2008. 2007 is the copyright date in the
underlying work or expression, which was first published in 2007; the
paperback was published the following year, given the printing evidence.
On the other hand, if I decide the paperback is within the same
manifestation as the hardback, I would just include it on the original
2007 record. Depends on if there is a size/pagination difference, how
specialized my library is, etc.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell
Head, Special Collections and Formats Catalog Dept.
6728 Harold B. Lee Library
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
(801)422-5568 

"We should set an example for all the world, rather than confine
ourselves to the course which has been heretofore pursued"--Eliza R.
Snow, 1842.

 

From: Resource Description and Access / Resource Description and Access
[mailto:RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA] On Behalf Of Deborah Fritz
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 7:32 AM
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Subject: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

 

Dear RDA-L Folks,

 

I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you as
possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two resources:

 

Example 1

Verso of book reads:

 

Copyright (c) 2013

First printing, August 2012

ISBN 9780321832740

 

Which date would you use to supply the publication date:

a)  the copyright date

b)  the first printing date

Would you add any other date information?

-

 

Example 2

Verso of book reads:

 

Copyright (c) 2007

First printed in paperback 2008

ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk)

ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper)

 

The hardcover version was published in 2007

 

Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the
paperback that you have:

c)   the copyright date

d)  the first printing (paperback) date

Would you add any other date information?

-

 

I'm trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see in
copy cataloging records, for this type of situation.

 

If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please reply
to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.com?

 

Thanks very much,

Deborah

 

-  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  

Deborah Fritz

TMQ, Inc.

debo...@marcofquality.com

www.marcofquality.com

 

Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

[JOHN C ATTIG]

Example 1: It depends on how you interpret "First printing, August 2012". While 
this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of publication 
of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was described from a 
copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would probably give "2012" 
without brackets as the date of publication. 

The copyright date, in this case, is not a core element; different institutions 
will have different policies about whether to include it. 

Example 2: As others have noted, it depends on whether you consider the 
paperback as a distinct manifestation. If so, then the date would be 2008. As 
with the previous example, I think I might interpret this as the date of 
publication of the paperback edition and give "2008" without brackets; 
although, admittedly, the wording in this case does tend to support treating 
2008 as the date of printing. 

I would probably give some indication of when the work was first published. I 
would probably give this in a note "Hardcover edition published in 2007"; I 
doubt that I would give the copyright date on a record for the paperback; it 
would seem only to confuse the issue of when the paperback was published. 

If you are not making a separate description for the paperback, then I would 
not record the 2008 date anywhere in the record -- unless I added a note 
"Paperback edition published in 2008". 

John 

- Original Message -

| From: "Deborah Fritz" 
| To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
| Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 9:31:46 AM
| Subject: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

| Dear RDA-L Folks,

| I would very much like to get some broad feedback from as many of you
| as possible, on how you would handle the dates for following two
| resources:

| Example 1
| Verso of book reads:

| Copyright © 2013
| First printing, August 2012
| ISBN 9780321832740

| Which date would you use to supply the publication date:
| a) the copyright date
| b) the first printing date
| Would you add any other date information?
| -

| Example 2
| Verso of book reads:

| Copyright © 2007
| First printed in paperback 2008
| ISBN 977-0-300-14333-1 (pbk)
| ISBN 978-0-300-12078-3 (alk. Paper)

| The hardcover version was published in 2007

| Which date would you use to supply the publication date for the
| paperback that you have:
| c) the copyright date
| d) the first printing (paperback) date
| Would you add any other date information?
| -

| I’m trying to get a sense of how much variation we can expect to see
| in copy cataloging records, for this type of situation.

| If you would rather not share with the list, then would you please
| reply to me personally at: debo...@marcofquality.com ?

| Thanks very much,
| Deborah

| - - - - - - - -
| Deborah Fritz
| TMQ, Inc.
| debo...@marcofquality.com
| www.marcofquality.com

Re: [RDA-L] Please unsubscribe me.

[Geoffrey Hooker]

I was able to sign off from my old address by sending

 lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca

a message containing only

SIGNOFF RDA-L

as I am leaving that email.
--
Geoffrey Hooker, MA, MLS
Charleston (Ill.)


Quoting Marla :

Good luck with that one, I went to the website recommended and still  
get it. It will be okay as I am looking for work and one of the jobs  
I need to know RDA better.




 From: Janis Ford 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 1:12 PM
Subject: [RDA-L] Please unsubscribe me.





--
Janis Ford
Ryerson University Library & Archives
350 Victoria St.
Toronto, Ontario  M5M 2K3
(416) 979-5000 ext. 4943

Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

[Greta de Groat]

- Original Message -
From: "JOHN C ATTIG" 
To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:42 AM
Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing


Example 1: It depends on how you interpret "First printing, August 2012". While 
this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of publication 
of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was described from a 
copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would probably give "2012" 
without brackets as the date of publication. 
...

John 

- Original Message -


If you interpret it as the date of publication, wouldn't you put: August 2012  ?

I only got a couple of replies to my previous question about when to interpret 
fuller dates as publication dates and when to interpret them as dates of 
transmittal, which only indicated that the two are sometimes different but not 
when to know that a date is one or the other without additional evidence like a 
different copyright date or a later date recorded in a GPO number or 
bibliography or something. RDA seems to want us to record the date as given, 
though, and i'm assuming that that was the JSC's intent when they included the 
"May 2000" example at 2.8.6.3.   It's understandable that we are reluctant to 
record full dates given that under AACR2 we were just to record the year, and 
that made it easier to deal with questions like this one about the manufacture 
date.  But given our inhibition as well as the mysterious LC-PCC-PS that i 
cited in my earlier question, it seems like we're not really settled on when we 
record full dates as dates of publication.  

To rephrase my question, if i've got August 21, 2012 on my title page and no 
other date on the piece and no reason to assume that that date is inaccurate 
(or a date of an HTML document saying "Posted June 3, 2013"), why would i 
assume that that date is *not* the publication date?  Any more than i would 
assume that "First printing, August 2012" is not a publication date?


Greta de Groat
Stanford University Libraries

Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing

[Gene Fieg]

I sort agree.  If that is the only date and it says "printing", I will use
that as the publication date.  Maybe with a "?", but not likely.


On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Greta de Groat wrote:

> - Original Message -
> From: "JOHN C ATTIG" 
> To: RDA-L@LISTSERV.LAC-BAC.GC.CA
> Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2013 8:02:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [RDA-L] No date of publication, first printing
>
>
> Example 1: It depends on how you interpret "First printing, August 2012".
> While this might be the date of manufacture, it might also be the date of
> publication of the first printing -- and I was taught that an edition was
> described from a copy of the first printing of that edition. So I would
> probably give "2012" without brackets as the date of publication.
> ...
>
> John
>
> - Original Message -
>
>
> If you interpret it as the date of publication, wouldn't you put: August
> 2012  ?
>
> I only got a couple of replies to my previous question about when to
> interpret fuller dates as publication dates and when to interpret them as
> dates of transmittal, which only indicated that the two are sometimes
> different but not when to know that a date is one or the other without
> additional evidence like a different copyright date or a later date
> recorded in a GPO number or bibliography or something. RDA seems to want us
> to record the date as given, though, and i'm assuming that that was the
> JSC's intent when they included the "May 2000" example at 2.8.6.3.   It's
> understandable that we are reluctant to record full dates given that under
> AACR2 we were just to record the year, and that made it easier to deal with
> questions like this one about the manufacture date.  But given our
> inhibition as well as the mysterious LC-PCC-PS that i cited in my earlier
> question, it seems like we're not really settled on when we record full
> dates as dates of publication.
>
> To rephrase my question, if i've got August 21, 2012 on my title page and
> no other date on the piece and no reason to assume that that date is
> inaccurate (or a date of an HTML document saying "Posted June 3, 2013"),
> why would i assume that that date is *not* the publication date?  Any more
> than i would assume that "First printing, August 2012" is not a publication
> date?
>
>
> Greta de Groat
> Stanford University Libraries
>



-- 
Gene Fieg
Cataloger/Serials Librarian
Claremont School of Theology
gf...@cst.edu

Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Lincoln University do not
represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any of the information
or content contained in this forwarded email.  The forwarded email is that
of the original sender and does not represent the views of Claremont School
of Theology or Claremont Lincoln University.  It has been forwarded as a
courtesy for information only.

[RDA-L] RDA-L list commands, how to unsubscribe; web interface; subscription options

[Leonard, William]

Re-sending this message for your information.  Please note that this list 
migrated from the nlc-bnc.ca server to the lac-bac.gc.ca server several years 
ago.

Commands to control your subscription options may also be sent directly to the 
listserv machine.  There is also a web interface available for controlling your 
subscription at:
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RDA-L
As with other web interfaces, you will need to set up your own password, etc.
** Reading via RSS possible through links at the bottom of the page. **


* To remove your name from the list.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
SIGNOFF RDA-L


* To stop postings temporarily -- Please use this when you go on holidays or 
will not be reading your e-mail regularly.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
SET RDA-L NOMail

* To re-start mail delivery after using NOMail.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
SET RDA-L Mail

* To receive one message per day as an index in html format.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
set RDA-L IND HTML

* To receive one message per day that contains all the daily postings to the 
list.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
SET RDA-L DIGest

* To receive "carbon copies" of messages that you post to the list.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
SET RDA-L REPro

* To obtain a short list of common LISTSERV commands.
Send an email to:  
lists...@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca with 
this command in the body of the message:
HELP RDA-L


To post messages to the list, send messages to:
RDA-L@listserv.lac-bac.gc.ca

The web interface for controlling your RDA-L subscription options is available 
at:
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RDA-L
As with other web interfaces, you will need to set up your own password, etc.


RDA-L is archived at:
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca/cgi-bin/wa?A0=RDA-L

Library and Archives Canada's listserv archive:
https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca


---
For further information, please contact:
JSC Secretary
email: jscsecret...@rdatoolkit.org



RDA-L uses the LISTSERV(tm) software. Detailed help is available at the 
Subscribers Corner https://listserv.collectionscanada.gc.ca




Bill Leonard

Information Standards Specialist  |  Spécialiste des normes de l'information
william.leon...@bac-lac.gc.ca
Telephone   |  Téléphone : +1-819-994-6936
Facsimile   |  Télécopieur : +1-819-934-6777 (new)
Content Management Division, Metadata Sharing, Open Data | Division de gestion 
des contenus, Échange de métadonnées, Données ouvertes
Library and Archives Canada  |  Bibliothèque et Archives Canada
550 De la Cité blvd  |  550, blvd de la Cité
Gatineau, Québec  K1A 0N4
Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada
www.collectionscanada.gc.ca

[RDA-L] Bible. New Testament. Syriac. Peshitta--relationship designator for "text prepared by"?

[Dana Van Meter]

Hello,
I'm cataloging The Syriac Peshitta Bible with English translation,
published by Gorgias Press, 2012-. Each volume lists translators
("translated by"), and a person (or persons) said to have prepared the
text ("text prepared by"). George A. Kiraz is listed as the General editor
in the write up at the publisher's website:
http://www.gorgiaspress.com/bookshop/p-59841-kiraz-george-a-the-antioch-bi
ble--the-syriac-peshitta-bible-with-english-translation-individual-subscri
ption-75vol.aspx, however the title pages of the individual volumes just
list him after "text prepared by", and sometimes there is another
individual who has prepared the text for a particular volume in addition
to George A. Kiraz.  Does anyone have any ideas on what would be a good
relationship designator for the individuals who have "prepared the text"?
I used editor, but I'm not really happy with that, although I'm stumped
for what else might work.  Would appreciate any thoughts others might
have.

Thanks very much,
Dana Van Meter
Catalog Librarian
Historical Studies-Social Science Library
Institute for Advanced Study
Princeton, NJ 08540
vanme...@ias.edu